Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rick_chasey

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Possibly your job gives you a slightly skewed view.

Of course, but by the same token, I have a pretty good idea of what people are paid at various levels across the City.

I have met dozens if not hundreds of average people who earn more than May in a year.

A reflection that those people are overpaid, not that MPs are underpaid?

Maybe, but you forget how much people earn at the top of their various fields.

Running a University is considerably more profitable for example.

rick_chasey

I mean, is it not odd that the journalist reporting on the Theresa May is earning almost double what May is earning?

rick_chasey

I mean, if it were up to me, I would want the person who, for example, has the ultimate decision on what the UK government's tax and spending is going to be to earn more than a jumped up accountant in a bog average Insurer that everyone hates, right?

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Possibly your job gives you a slightly skewed view.

Of course, but by the same token, I have a pretty good idea of what people are paid at various levels across the City.

I have met dozens if not hundreds of average people who earn more than May in a year.

Most MPs aren't based in that London though so you need to compare their salary against what they'd earn in the sticks. It's a lot less.

They are in London!

Isn't hat half the argument? That they're all too London-centric 'cos they get given a place in London?

Point is, for someone at the top of a pretty big game, £150k really isn't much. This is amply demonstrated by the amounts they earn immediately before and after being an MP. Majority of cabinet leaders immediately trouser a shedload more.

Osbourne gets £650k for 60 days work FFS. Now THAT is top of your game money.

But if you go back to the original argument (ie talent shortfall) MPs are mostly not in London in terms of home base. There is no need to assume that they are all motivated by the grubby city nor put off by salaries that will actually be generous compared to what they expect to learn where they live. Maybe the greed comes later - when they have got a Govt role and are looking at all the Boris's around them and wanting a bit of that action as well but I don't think that a perception of poor pay is the cause of the talent shortage - at least outside of the London based MPs.

For me, a lot of it is that simply that why would any intelligent, grown adult want to work in a job that requires the sort of behaviour expected in the House of Commons?

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

I mean, if it were up to me, I would want the person who, for example, has the ultimate decision on what the UK government's tax and spending is going to be to earn more than a jumped up accountant in a bog average Insurer that everyone hates, right?

There's your problem see - too much focus on the value of the pay packet! I would want the person who has the ultimate decision on what the UK government's tax and spending to be competent and motivated. As long as they are happy with what they earn I wouldn't care how their salary compares to someone elses. Most peoples salary is only approximately proportionate to their usefulness on this earth so it is a good idea not to get hung up on what other people earn. If you want what they earn, get their job.

rick_chasey

You can talk about the grubby city all you want, but you walk into any FTSE250 company, and I bet you you can go at least 4 layers deep before you start bumping into people who earn less than an MP.

And that's before all the privately owned companies.

I mean, if £150k puts you in the top 1% of earners, that's still half a million people.

These are exceptional jobs, for not very exceptional wages.

rick_chasey

Rolf F wrote:

If you want what they earn, get their job.

They do! That's my whole point!

mamba80

Most ministers are multi millionaires, by the time they get into cabinet, maybe thats the problem?

also, even the humble MP will live off being an MP long after he/she has left Parliament.

i find it incredible that those who reach Parliament seem to lack any real leadership and just follow, i mean wht the xxxx is May doing copying labour policies and introducing as their own? or deliberately going down the brexit path, knowing full well it is a disaster and not something she personally even believes in????

hardly surprising she was choking.

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

I mean, is it not odd that the journalist reporting on the Theresa May is earning almost double what May is earning?

Maybe if journalists weren't so overpaid theyd be better placed to handle the death of print media!

Isn't this partly that in the private sector salaries at the top end have raced away in the last two decades, and partly a London/rest of England thing.

rick_chasey

You get my point right?

The brightest and best don't go into politics.

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

You get my point right?

The brightest and best don't go into politics.

Sure, but I think that has less to do with pay and more to do with other factors.

Its show business for ugly people. I don't think raising mps pay fixes that.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

You get my point right?

The brightest and best don't go into politics.

Depends what you mean by best and brightest. My experience of people earning that kind of money is that their skills are very specialised, whereas I think a good MP will have a broad range of skills, many of which may be less in demand in the FTSE250.

rick_chasey

Sure, but you don't need many of them!

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

Most ministers are multi millionaires, by the time they get into cabinet, maybe thats the problem?

also, even the humble MP will live off being an MP long after he/she has left Parliament.

i find it incredible that those who reach Parliament seem to lack any real leadership and just follow, i mean wht the xxxx is May doing copying labour policies and introducing as their own? or deliberately going down the brexit path, knowing full well it is a disaster and not something she personally even believes in????

hardly surprising she was choking.

You are inadvertently agreed with Rick. Politics has become a job for the very poor or very rich.

Who else would spend years climbing the greasy pole with a tiny chance of success to earn £60k a year?

A bright person could become an accountant or lawyer and guarantee to earn double.

orraloon

Oh come on. Doubt many if any MPs are in it for the money.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sure, but you don't need many of them!

Agreed, but I don't see how raising an MP's salary is likely to lead to a better selection of 650. A mercenary streak is not an indicator of better political skills.

rick_chasey

I love this idea that somehow wanting to earn lots is a) mercenary and b) that current politicians are not mercenary.

People rarely consider any part of the job in isolation, but each bit helps.

Higher pay can help sweeten some of the tougher parts of a job, for example.

In my mind the pay should reflect the importance and responsibilities, and then how rare it is to possess the relevant skills.

tangled_metal

And reflect what employers think of them...
So minimum wage for Corbyn and May it is!

rolf_f

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You get my point right?

The brightest and best don't go into politics.

Sure, but I think that has less to do with pay and more to do with other factors.

Its show business for ugly people. I don't think raising mps pay fixes that.

That was my point. I suspect the problem is not the MPs but Govt. Ultimately, the shouty ones seem to get to the top - and they are all too often the least talented at anything other than telling people how great they are.

Rick Chasey wrote:

In my mind the pay should reflect the importance and responsibilities, and then how rare it is to possess the relevant skills.

The skills aren't rare though. It's always hyped up how rare those skills are but they aren't - it's just that the nature of the job doesn't find them. The people with those skills would probably want to do something more rewarding and valuable. They won't be in the city either for the same reasons.

rick_chasey

Rolf F wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You get my point right?

The brightest and best don't go into politics.

Sure, but I think that has less to do with pay and more to do with other factors.

Its show business for ugly people. I don't think raising mps pay fixes that.

That was my point. I suspect the problem is not the MPs but Govt. Ultimately, the shouty ones seem to get to the top - and they are all too often the least talented at anything other than telling people how great they are.

Rick Chasey wrote:

In my mind the pay should reflect the importance and responsibilities, and then how rare it is to possess the relevant skills.

The skills aren't rare though. It's always hyped up how rare those skills are but they aren't - it's just that the nature of the job doesn't find them. The people with those skills would probably want to do something more rewarding and valuable. They won't be in the city either for the same reasons.

Skills to be the leader of a country aren't rare?

Jeez.

Lookyhere

Whats up with this Tori Gov? seem to be imploding.

IDS and Major all over again, dont they ever learn.

briantrumpet

Even the New York Times is considering the possibility of Corbyn as PM: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opin ... orbyn.html

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You get my point right?

The brightest and best don't go into politics.

Sure, but I think that has less to do with pay and more to do with other factors.

Its show business for ugly people. I don't think raising mps pay fixes that.

That was my point. I suspect the problem is not the MPs but Govt. Ultimately, the shouty ones seem to get to the top - and they are all too often the least talented at anything other than telling people how great they are.

Rick Chasey wrote:

In my mind the pay should reflect the importance and responsibilities, and then how rare it is to possess the relevant skills.

The skills aren't rare though. It's always hyped up how rare those skills are but they aren't - it's just that the nature of the job doesn't find them. The people with those skills would probably want to do something more rewarding and valuable. They won't be in the city either for the same reasons.

Skills to be the leader of a country aren't rare?

Jeez.

Why would you think that they aren't? Just because the process by which we have our leaders chosen for us provides us with almost entirely crap examples doesn't mean that the skills are rare themselves. Why would you think that the skills to be the leader of a country are that rare? How many people in a 1000 do you think have them? Is Theresa May in that 1000? How many people in the country have those skills? What is rare is the opportunity to be the leader of a country and the chance that someone with those skills gets that opportunity.

You over-estimate the rarity of skill. This is why company directors get so over-paid, why TV "talent" gets so overpaid. It's not that rare.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

In my mind the pay should reflect the importance and responsibilities, and then how rare it is to possess the relevant skills.

But you must know, particularly from your own work, that this is mostly not the case, even within a single organisation, let alone across employment in general.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

In my mind the pay should reflect the importance and responsibilities, and then how rare it is to possess the relevant skills.

But you must know, particularly from your own work, that this is mostly not the case, even within a single organisation, let alone across employment in general.

Meh, it's rare the best people don't do well.

If you start arguing between two people who are equally good, fine, but as a rule of thumb good people do well.

I don't know what's so odd about having literally the leader(s) of the UK being remunerated well for it, particularly if it helps broaden the talent pool, which we all seem to agree seems worryingly small.

rick_chasey

Rolf F wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You get my point right?

The brightest and best don't go into politics.

Sure, but I think that has less to do with pay and more to do with other factors.

Its show business for ugly people. I don't think raising mps pay fixes that.

That was my point. I suspect the problem is not the MPs but Govt. Ultimately, the shouty ones seem to get to the top - and they are all too often the least talented at anything other than telling people how great they are.

Rick Chasey wrote:

In my mind the pay should reflect the importance and responsibilities, and then how rare it is to possess the relevant skills.

The skills aren't rare though. It's always hyped up how rare those skills are but they aren't - it's just that the nature of the job doesn't find them. The people with those skills would probably want to do something more rewarding and valuable. They won't be in the city either for the same reasons.

Skills to be the leader of a country aren't rare?

Jeez.

Why would you think that they aren't? Just because the process by which we have our leaders chosen for us provides us with almost entirely crap examples doesn't mean that the skills are rare themselves. Why would you think that the skills to be the leader of a country are that rare? How many people in a 1000 do you think have them? Is Theresa May in that 1000? How many people in the country have those skills? What is rare is the opportunity to be the leader of a country and the chance that someone with those skills gets that opportunity.

You over-estimate the rarity of skill. This is why company directors get so over-paid, why TV "talent" gets so overpaid. It's not that rare.

I think you confuse skill with potential.

Ya need the years of experience to obtain a lot of the skill. That's what a lot of people forget.

Entertainment is a red herring, but if it was so easy to get over-paid, why isn't everyone doing it?

And, for the leader of the UK, surely to be one of the best, by definition, it ought to be a rare skill.

You want to be aiming for the top of the top of the top.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

In my mind the pay should reflect the importance and responsibilities, and then how rare it is to possess the relevant skills.

But you must know, particularly from your own work, that this is mostly not the case, even within a single organisation, let alone across employment in general.

Meh, it's rare the best people don't do well.

If you start arguing between two people who are equally good, fine, but as a rule of thumb good people do well.

I don't know what's so odd about having literally the leader(s) of the UK being remunerated well for it, particularly if it helps broaden the talent pool, which we all seem to agree seems worryingly small.

Agreed. My point was that not-so-good people often do a lot, lot better than their level or breadth of ability would indicate.

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think you confuse skill with potential.

Ya need the years of experience to obtain a lot of the skill. That's what a lot of people forget.

Entertainment is a red herring, but if it was so easy to get over-paid, why isn't everyone doing it?

And, for the leader of the UK, surely to be one of the best, by definition, it ought to be a rare skill.

You want to be aiming for the top of the top of the top.

Just out of interest, what would we pin down as the skills to be a good: PM, Cabinet Minister and MP?

I think you'd be better off looking at how to structure the selection process to better filter those skills, than looking at increasing the pay in the hope that more people with those skills apply.

Lookyhere

briantrumpet wrote:

Even the New York Times is considering the possibility of Corbyn as PM: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opin ... orbyn.html

Good

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Even the New York Times is considering the possibility of Corbyn as PM: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opin ... orbyn.html

Good

It really is not. We don't want to find out the hard way how much damage socialism can do - after all we already know that from other cases around the world.

That said, I would be in big demand and have one of the most secure jobs outside of the public sector if he ever did get in. (Always look on the bright side of life...)